What are some examples of successful anarchist societies in history?

None, at least if you consider a society only successful if it can sustain all other major forces rallying together to crush it.

Literally none. Don't like them fool you when they say Catalonia.

There are none Catalonia, Free territory, Shinmin autonomous region these societies all failed.

File: 006.png (6KB, 634x345px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 634x345px

anarchism is a meme

Here's my personal all inclusive list:
>

Government is the end game of highly intelligent social creatures as we know it. It's just impossible to pool resources with no management of said resources.

Now, that doesn't mean that all government is good or accidental/purposeful mismanagement of resources doesn't occur.

The world of anarchy is short, dumb, cruel, and boring.

>>1879910

anarcho-communism is stupid but thats a pretty dumb interpretation of it

Detroit

>>1879910
>prevent anyone from having stuff
confirmed for not knowing the difference between private property and possessive property

>>1879706
Societies that eventually developed governments.

File: 1468972713606.png (21KB, 766x474px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 766x474px

there are none and don't let any faggot memer tell you otherwise

File: 1475882480289.jpg (288KB, 800x913px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 800x913px

>>1879722
OP said successful, anon. Sorry to break it to you, but existing for less than 5 years is not successful by any definition of the word.

why is "anarchism=no government at all" such a widespread meme?

political philosophies usually seek to interpret ways of life within the political scope, meaning you can have a pragmatic libertarian society without the bullshit that /his/ usually memes about. An anarchist society simply means a society influenced by the respective ideals, not a pure philosphy incarnate.

File: 1477368010477.jpg (100KB, 498x460px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 498x460px

>>1879706
>anarchist societies

>successful

hahahahahahaha!!

Christiania in Denmark has been selling weed and being cop free largely unmolested for quite a while now.

>>1881037
They also have a lot of gang problems.

File: anarcho-capitalsim.png (16KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 2000x1333px

The best kind of anarchy

>>1881044
I'm not sure if you're being winkingly sarcastic since ancaps aren't anarchists or just being dumb.

>>1879706

Anarchism suffers from the same problems as communism in that nobody can define it because there are no practical examples. So it's just some theoretical construct that has no real relevance to the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

seemed kinda succesful desu
[spoiler]until communists came [/spoiler]

>>1880083
Who enforces the distinction.

You anarkiddies are so fucking retarded.

>>1881143
You don't need to. Private property is already an institution that needs to be enforced, by removing the enforcement of it no more is necessary.

>>1880083
How will anarchists prevent people from claiming ownership over the means of production, if they manage to posses it and are willing to defend it?

Do they not intend to use force to prevent the re-privatization of property?

Do they not differentiate between that force/violence and the force/violence of the would be privatizer?

Isnt then, the distinction between the state (monopolized violence) and the will of the anarchist mass blurred? Even negated?

Arent anarchists replicating state power? Dont all ideologies which accept mass society replicate state power?

Why is everyone talking about ''''''''anarcho''''''''-communism when anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism because it seems to be the only group that actually argues for a stateless society.

Anarcho-Communism is extremely unlikely to be succesfully implemented because it requires two things.
1. It requires an area where an ancom society can thrive without any threat from the outside world.
2. It requires every single one of its individuals to agree with the philosophy and not to take advantage of their comrades. That means no one may use violence, restrict somebody elses freedom, mistreat someone in any way, take more than what belongs to them or contribute nothing to society.

>>1881171
anarchy suffers from the whole "let's organize as if we were a state but let's not call it a state" thing

>anarchist society
what?

>>1879910
>money
wew lad

>>1879706
>ha the reaction backstabbed/fucked you over every time
>that disputes your theory
can this meme just end?

>>1881414
Theory doesn't mean shit if it can't be properly implemented friendo. No Anarchist movement would be big enough to fend off wave after wave of reactionary armies trying to fuck their shit up. Just look at Catalonia and the Free Territory.

>>1879706
Anarchy was successful in Ukraine and Catalonia. It was crushed because rightists are essentially inhuman.

>>1881453
To be perfectly fair, failure of implementation doesn't mean the theory is unsound. Democracy only lasted a limited time in Athens, and then we spend centuries without it before it abruptly became the dominant form of governance on the planet.

File: 05cb524a9c0a3f4a5d9978d52fc95c4dbd18865e.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>1881477
>rightists are essentially inhuman

>>1881160
Except for the fact that the distinction between means of production & normal property has blurred so much that you can't even divide personal & private without inconsistent arbitrary definitions that don't hold water.

At most some Ancoms admit that it is up to the will of the majority in the community in question and they can be as arbitrary as they want cos Democracy.

Newsflash, property is property and Democracy is shit.

>>1881730
The distinction between property and not property is arbitrary in any society.

File: 1475699228670.png (241KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 640x640px

post anarcho-merms

>>1881745
Except property itself has a very clear line of logical reasoning during disagreement, the distinctions people dream up on top of that always lack consistency and destroy the fundamentals of why ownership as a concept is important.

>>1880949
Well to be fair they fell because of the Red Army

>>1881827
>Except property itself has a very clear line of logical reasoning during disagreement

Not really. See the concerns about absentee ownership or the question of whether finders is indeed keepers (which are both in fact the same issue). Either conclusion you can take on this particular issue has odd ramifications (if I can't own something when absent from it, what stops people from stealing my house when I go out to get the groceries versus the whole bag of worms that is allowing someone to own something in perpetuity just because they laid claim to it at one point, even if they appear to have abandoned it).

As much as he gets memed about here, Stirner does a really good job of showing how property ownership is indeed just an arbitrary construct, and that you ultimately own what you can either defend from others, or others are willing to help defend for you.

>>1881841
>fascism is the best way to strength a nation to fight outside forces and/or to bring back a nation back on its feet after collapse

Fascism has consistently failed at both of these. Fascist states have been almost universally destroyed by outside forces, and tended to slow down the recovery of the nations that adopted them.

>>1881867
Same thing with libertarianism, has there ever been a successful libertarian society or place?

>>1879706
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovism

>>1881841
How is libertarianism appreciably different from liberalism as represented by this infographic?

Why would the Libertarian say he agrees with the Fascist when what he says is directly opposed to all the stated Fascist tenants?

File: 1470093437658.jpg (6KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 245x245px

>>1881841
>Libertarianism & Fascism are "god-tier"

I cringed.

File: CtGNe1JWcAIfkms.jpg large.jpg (62KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1024x768px

>>1881841
>libertarianism in the same tier as fascism

>>1881841
>libertarianism as an independent coherrent ideology
americans everybody

>>1881875
Further, American libertarianism (ignoring the anarchist roots of the word itself, we're strictly talking about the nearly exclusively American phenomenon) is just an outgrowth of liberalism.

American Libertarian thinkers draw extensively on the old liberal thinkers of the latter Enlightenment.

>>1881880
please refer to:
>>1880949

>>1881855
> you can either defend from others, or others are willing to help defend for you.

Pretty much. In a civilized society while force is necessary if no agreement is reached, the great achievement is the ability to use reasoning and evidence to arbitrate disputes, it at least gives us a semblance of cooperation and peace which has done quite a bit under Capitalism.

>>1881875
Sliding scale.

>>1881885
I think the idea behind it is that they respectfully disagree and see the merits in either idea (no fucking clue why) and disdain the rest.

>>1881901
Yeah, I'm not arguing with that, I'm just pointing out that our particular notion of property is still a fairly arbitrary construct. It's been a useful one, but is indeed arbitrary.

For the record I don't agree with anarcho-communism (or any communism for that matter) but they're not entirely wrong in thinking that private property is just a societal institution.

>>1881908
>I agree that ethics should be controlled by the government but Iavtualky think there should be as little government as possible.

That picture is some gr8 b8

File: this and that.png (44KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x480px

>>1879706
Free Territory

>>1879706
The internet

>>1879706
cavemen

>>1879706
Nearly every commune through history without hierarchy, including the ones today. Most of them are usually very successful and sustainable, and typically the only reason why they die is because the next generation want to join the outside world. If you're talking about a mass society, there's not many examples because it truly hasn't been tried beyond a few occasions, and even if it failed with a mass society it says nothing about its validity.
>>1881730
>>1881855
There difference between private and personal property is pretty clear cut because the definitions are based upon the means of production. Your house is still your house even if you're absent because your ownership of it isn't entirely based upon possession, while one's ownership of private property is.
>>1881901
>Capitalist society encourages peace and cooperation and not exploitation and compulsory agreements
>disputes are settled through reasoning and evidence and not through hiring the best lawyers
I laughed.

>>1881994
Prehistoric burial patterns and (in the case of the Neolithic) structural layouts indicate (arguably) some form of hierarchy.
In the Paleolithic, however, there is much less evidence for any form of hierarchy, though it's debatable whether these collections of hominids constitute a society, as, especially in the Lower Paleolithic, the Homo genus had only just emerged, and lithic industires must not be confused with the presence of societies. Granted, in the Upper Paleolithic, we do see small settlements and culture emerging, though despite the lack of artefactual evidence for the contrary, we cannot conclude that the societies were "anarchist".

>>1881922
Can it really be called arbitrary though, merely because some people disagree in disputes with force?

Property has a clear framework of reasoning that relies obviously on the people involved at the time, the same with any human interaction. The framework is very consistent though, subjective claims of ownership, backed up by evidence or logic of an objective link to the thing being claim & a subjective interpretation of the link. Ie. I bought this, here is the receipt.

This is the same with the scientific method, subjective hypothesis, backed by objective evidence followed by a subjective interpretation.

It remains consistent in the realm of argumentation, but just as applying heat to ice doesn't change the evidence for what ice is, applying force in property disputes doesn't change what property is and how it's argued.

>>1882004
> the definitions are based upon the means of production

....and the difference between means of production and any other type of property have blurred so much it's become a meaningless distinction.

> your ownership of your house isn't entirely based upon possession
> while one's ownership of private property is

You might want to expand on that because it doesn't follow at all. Saying that you still own a house whether you possess it or not is the same as owning a means of production whether you possess it or not (ie absentee ownership). How is private property entirely based on possession and a house or personal possession is not?

> >Capitalist society encourages peace and cooperation and not exploitation and compulsory agreements

Don't be ridiculous, voluntary interaction for mutual benefit has produced cooperation period.

>disputes are settled through reasoning and evidence and not through hiring the best lawyers

Yes the states court system is very flawed, however the concept of ownership itself remains with a consistent framework. The fact that people argue ownership claims better than others doesn't invalidate the concept itself. Just as someone taking a candy from a retard that just bought it.

>>1882004
I dont understand your definition of private possession. Do you have a better one?

>>1882080
>....and the difference between means of production and any other type of property have blurred so much it's become a meaningless distinction.
It's really not. Labor, tools, and natural resources are the means of production. A house isn't any of those.
>You might want to expand on that because it doesn't follow at all. Saying that you still own a house whether you possess it or not is the same as owning a means of production whether you possess it or not (ie absentee ownership). How is private property entirely based on possession and a house or personal possession is not?
The rules for private property vs personal property are different because private property affects everyone while personal property doesn't. A person owning a house doesn't matter to me, while them owning the local natural resources or factories do.
>Don't be ridiculous, voluntary interaction for mutual benefit has produced cooperation period.
When the system is designed for you to either work for someone or be homeless, obviously working for someone benefits you both and can be said to be voluntary, but again, that's not really saying much when the alternative is homelessness.
>The fact that people argue ownership claims better than others doesn't invalidate the concept itself.
If something is true or not, how good of a orator or arguer you are shouldn't be relevant.
>>1882097
Property that relates to the means of production is considered private property, while property that doesn't is considered personal. There could be grey areas like whether your garden or car is personal or private, but in general the two are very different.

>>1882133
Your house is on land, can you not own the land, as it is a natural resource?

Computers are tools. Can you not own a computer? Or is it just software that has to be public?

>>1882238
>Your house is on land, can you not own the land, as it is a natural resource?
The amount of land a single house is on isn't really relevant to any significant industry or farming. Whereas declaring hundreds of acres yours because you said so, is.
>Computers are tools. Can you not own a computer? Or is it just software that has to be public?
It depends on the circumstances. In a wester country computers are so widespread that a single computer can be considered personal property, whereas a poor community in Africa where IT work or software development is somehow an industry, a single computer would be private. A supercomputer or a server farm are rare and important enough in a western country to be considered means of production and as such private property.

>>1881003
Not an argument.

Fuck off fascists.

>>1882286

A failure of discourse

File: image.png (275KB, 641x1122px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 641x1122px

>>1881477

>>1880065
>Someone with no idea how many decades of big government programming were required to get Detroit as fucked as it is today.

There is no such thing as an anarchist society.

Society is orderly.

>>1881037
>>1881041
Why no both? Sounds like what a functional anarchy would include.

>>1882268

>It depends on the circumstances. In a wester country computers are so widespread that a single computer can be considered personal property, whereas a poor community in Africa where IT work or software development is somehow an industry, a single computer would be private.

Arn't you just describing a scenario where personal property = private property owned by one person? So the distinction between private and personal property is about how widespread it is?

>The rules for private property vs personal property are different because private property affects everyone while personal property doesn't.

But widespread computers does affect everyone. It means that you can have more people shitposting on a Iranian air-freshener enthusiast board.

>>1882059
>Can it really be called arbitrary though, merely because some people disagree in disputes with force?

Unless it's etched in universal law as something like C being the limit of all motion, it's fucking arbitrary.

>>1883059
Yes and no. Farmland and timber forests are pretty widespread, but they're still means of production and therefor private property. Classifying something as private property is ultimately an economic question rather than a widespread categorical one. If there's only two people in the entire world there's no reason in distinguishing different types of property, because they could just claim whatever they wanted and it'd make no difference. The question of private vs personal property is only relevant if such a distinct needs to be made. For instance, if there was an extensive economy based upon computers, then computers would become a means of production, and if there were a scarcity of computers in such an economy then computers would become private property; they could always have been considered private property, but the distinction only matters in certain circumstances.
>But widespread computers does affect everyone. It means that you can have more people shitposting on a Iranian air-freshener enthusiast board.
Unfortunately so. But I mostly meant affect in an economic sense.

File: 1467982627916.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>1879706
the individual

File: 1474852001382.png (118KB, 640x656px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x656px

My fav

>>1883999
Stirner actually gave some examples of a union of egoists. He said some friends going to a wine bar, children playing and two people in love with eachother.

>>1881044
Anarcho-capitalistism

how can you have no system of law or government whatsoever yet still have an economy(which is a system perpetuated by a government or system of law)in which to practice capitalism in?

I like anarchism because it is one of the more profound political thought experiments we have come up with.

It will tell you nearly everything about the person attempting to define it. Are they optimistic about the possibilities of human social arrangements? Do they ultimately need authority for any sense of motivation or morality? Are they just dumb and want to fuck shit up? There is a version of anarchy for each of these types, and just as many revealing arguments against their implementation.

There are more versions of anarchy than there are practitioners, and it exists almost entirely as discussions, books, and very brief experiments to always be absorbed by more violent, neighboring systems of higher organization.


Anarchy is impossible, so long as the primitive drives for dominance and subservience remain at the core of our species, and those so cursed with visions of how we could live better and more freely can only be architects of strange and beautiful places that cannot be built, and will never be occupied.

Good day.

>>1881044

>feudalism 2: recreational nuclear boogaloo

>>1881259

Except anarchism advocates for the abolishment of hierarchies, something which capitalism generates, to the point where in an an cap society you'd have the corporations dictating your life.

But hey, NO TAXES THO

File: image.jpg (156KB, 616x714px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 616x714px

>>1881841

here, FTFY

File: image.png (142KB, 928x2672px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 928x2672px

>>1879706

>>1885828
You're still essentially taxed through rent and your labor being exploited.
>>1885843
Makho was a cool guy but man did he look like a giant homo. I guess he's proof that someone can be charismatic without being good looking.

File: 1454958780798.jpg (51KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 514x536px

>>1885835
That communism paragraph. Jesus Christ.

J U S T

your ideology is just so bad

>>1885843
The problem with anarchism is that is it unable to deal with "wtf we have to stop this!" people. It's not even because it runs counter to the ideology of the a prevalent superpower that says "wtf we have to stop this!" it can be brought down by pretty much anyone who goes "wtf we have to stop this!".

>>1886123
It's perfectly able to deal with it; it just like all ideologies loses wars that are extremely in their disadvantage.

>>1886761
>anarchism is bad because all the problems that exist in a state would also exist in an anarchist society and therefor that invalidates it as being a better system; I will also conveniently ignore how the absence of the most powerful and dangerous organization in history would not make a significant difference.
>>1886769
Just because people can choose to not be apart of a certain system doesn't mean the system doesn't exist or have a specific, unique way of organization.

File: Makhno_1925.jpg (26KB, 283x361px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 283x361px

>>1885871
>Makho was a cool guy but man did he look like a giant homo. I guess he's proof that someone can be charismatic without being good looking.

He adopted better style later on.

>>1886769
>property
>without force
>individual anarchism
Are you stupid?

>>1887005
>I will also conveniently ignore how the absence of the most powerful and dangerous organization in history would not make a significant difference.
but it won't cease to exist, it will just pop back up naturally as people seek power and others seek protection from bandits and those seeking power. and these new states will be more violent than those we have now in the west and without any of those "rights" that you enjoy

File: eJwNyUEOhCAMAMC_8ACghZbWzxiiBt2oGMHTZv--HifzNc-9m8GsvV9tcG7e2lTv2bZe71wWW2ot-5KvrdmpHi73nqf1WM7eHAiIakgxJELPCugQASIhp_iSOBA6QMKgAOM7XqO8r0FJeeQkij54ZqHIwoJxPO3nKub3B76oKi8.VEK3TKmQcj1LB2wYMdkYbo4ESqE.jpg (22KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 720x479px

>>1885725
I used to be an anarcho-capitalist and I'll explain it as succintly as possible.

Anarcho-Capitalists are "Anarcho" because they object to the state and the use of force. They are not against hierarchy in the same way that Anarcho-Communists are. They both object to the state, but for different reasons. Anarcho-Capitalists object to the state because it feels it infringes on freedom, with personal freedom being the highest value held by them.

Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalists often object to the current state of capitalism, calling it "State Capitalism", and will argue that many of the negative aspects of Capitalism will disappear in an Anarcho-Capitalistic society.

A common objection to Anarcho-Capitalism is that it does not eliminate hierarchy. But it's not the goal of Anarcho-Capitalism to eliminate hierarchy in the same way the other Anarcho ideologies want to. They wish to eliminate "forced" hierarchy, such as the monopoly of force by the state, used to infringe on personal liberty through mandatory taxation.

An Anarcho-Capitalist would object to an Anarcho-Communist removing the concept of private property as he feels it infringes on his freedom.

In the end it's mostly just a question of semantics, but it's good to clarify since many people object to it being an "oxymoron", but that is a misunderstanding born from having an unclear view of what Anarcho-Capitalism is and wishes to accomplish.

>>1887048
>it will just pop back up naturally as people seek power
A person who seeks power is irrelevant, he only becomes a danger if people obey him, which obviously people aren't likely to do in an anarchistic society.
>others seek protection from bandits and those seeking power
People are perfectly capable of organizing themselves into militias to defend themselves against aggressors. A big intimidating guy isn't really relevant when everyone has guns; especially when guns are a very effective equalizer, doesn't matter if it's a huge guy shooting or a teenage girl.
>>1887063
Anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism and oxymoron because anarchism by strict definition and by historical precedent is against all authority and hierarchy. Ancaps aren't really anarchists, just anti-statists.

>>1887096
>A person who seeks power is irrelevant, he only becomes a danger if people obey him, which obviously people aren't likely to do in an anarchistic society.
you're assuming that everyone in every generation is ideologically committed to anarchism

>People are perfectly capable of organizing themselves into militias to defend themselves against aggressors.
militias need leaders dummy.

>>1887117
>you're assuming that everyone in every generation is ideologically committed to anarchism
Humans don't like being told what to do. Children are naturally disobedient and questioning. Obedience and a respect for authority has to be instilled in me. There will always be people who prefer to follow, but following a lead you respect isn't the same as obeying a ruler you fear.
>militias need leaders dummy.
Leaders aren't rulers. A militia who have a very simple, clear goal of "protect our and our allies' homes"; any leaders wouldn't have to make broad, complex decisions or wield extensive powers.

>>1887153
has to be instilled in them*

>>1887063
No, many people believe ancap will lead to forced hierarchies by private entities that other people have no control over when there is no overarching government that all people are represented by.

>>1887159
Anarcho-Capitalism is literally just a euphemism for "Warlordism".

They really fail to see that, while many of their criticisms of state power and violence are absolutely true, trying to abolish the monopoly of force doesn't seem like a very good idea given the amount of bloodshed and chaos that would ensue.

>>1887203
>b-buh muh nap says no one will be violent ever

>>1887203
The real criticism with Ancapism isn't that it'll become warlordism, since warlords are aggressor and therefor break the NAP, which would make it no longer ancap, but that it would essentially be feudalism with less warring.
>>1887208
The NAP is a good idea in principle, it's just that its main fault is that protecting "your" property with force isn't considered aggression. Basically, it's entire function is to morally justify violence in order to protect Capitalism.

>>1887265
>since warlords are aggressor and therefor break the NAP, which would make it no longer ancap, but that it would essentially be feudalism with less warring.

Point is that nobody has any reason to accept the NAP. The NAP is a moral principle which anyone can choose to accept or not accept.

The likelihood is that a state that suddenly turned stateless, would become a warzone trapped in civil war with competing groups trying to create another state.

>>1887265
>The real criticism with Ancapism isn't that it'll become warlordism
Yes it is.

>since warlords are aggressor and therefor break the NAP, which would make it no longer ancap, but that it would essentially be feudalism with less warring.
That's the problem, ancap is inherently unstable.

>>1887273
>Point is that nobody has any reason to accept the NAP. The NAP is a moral principle which anyone can choose to accept or not accept.
If no one follows the NAP then the system isn't ancapism. You can't blame a system for when people don't follow it.
>The likelihood is that a state that suddenly turned stateless, would become a warzone trapped in civil war with competing groups trying to create another state.
Sure, but that's not ancapism.
>>1887276
>That's the problem, ancap is inherently unstable.
No, the problem with it isn't that it's unstable, is that it's still the same oppression and shittiness under the state, just privatized. We're not talking about how the system would likely appear in reality, probably during some civil war, but how it would hypothetically appear and function in a stable and calm environment. Any system that exists during a civil war is going to be unstable, so you can't really criticize it for that.

>>1887292
No, it's unstable because people won't follow NAP, and according to you, if people don't follow NAP it's not ancap, and therefore ancap is unstable moron. There's no mechanism for ensuring NAP except hoping every wouldbe violator of NAP thinks it would be better if they didn't violate NAP.

>>1887294
Ancaps aren't pacifists. The NAP is against aggression, not force in general, and the idea behind it is if someone is violating it then it'd be legitimate to use force against them. Any breaking of the NAP in an ancap society would probably be met through private security or civilian militias or whatever other countermeasures are in place to keep the peace, I don't know; I don't even believe in it, I just want the criticisms against it to be valid. The point is if someone breaks the rules in a system, then it's not the fault of the system when shit goes bad.

>>1887319
The criticisms are valid, and you can't come up with a counterpoint, because even you don't believe those militias would be sufficient to prevent NAP violations.

>The point is if someone breaks the rules in a system, then it's not the fault of the system when shit goes bad.
Yes, it is, because a system needs to be viable, and in order to be viable, it needs a mechanism to sustain itself. This is different from a monarchy super power bullying your 3rd world ancap society. That doesn't mean monarchy is better. But if it falls apart by itself, or being easily destroyed is an inherent part of the system, even if you were a super power and they were the 3rd world country, you've got a problem.

>>1887319
>The point is if someone breaks the rules in a system, then it's not the fault of the system when shit goes bad.
Dude, if everyone just works according to his ability and we gave stuff out according to need, just out of a sense of the greater good we'd have utopia. The fact that no one would do this isn't the fault of the system.

That's what you sound like.

>>1887329
>because even you don't believe those militias would be sufficient to prevent NAP violations.
My issues with ancapism has nothing to do with how sustainable it is.
>But if it falls apart by itself, or being easily destroyed is an inherent part of the system, even if you were a super power and they were the 3rd world country, you've got a problem.
The whole point behind ancapism is that it's not really very different from the statism, so there's nothing preventing a sufficiently wealthy ancap society from hiring a bunch of private security or average joes to be their army. There's plenty of corporations now that are wealthier than certain countries, and could easily field an army if there was no state to protect their interests.
>>1887347
There's a difference between saying a system is shit because it doesn't work or is just generally shitty and saying a system is shit because people don't follow it. For instance, Marxism-Leninism is shit because an authoritarian, violent approach is inherent in its philosophy, so no matter what, following it will always lead to violence, so that's a valid criticism of it, but saying it's shit because criminals still existed in the USSR isn't a valid criticism.

>>1887373
Dude, if everyone just works according to his ability and we gave stuff out according to need, without Leninists and their violence, just out of a sense of the greater good we'd have utopia. The fact that no one would do this isn't the fault of the system.

Happy now?

>>1879706

zaporozhian cossack state in ukraine

>>1887390
>Dude, if everyone just works according to his ability and we gave stuff out according to need, without Leninists and their violence, just out of a sense of the greater good we'd have utopia. The fact that no one would do this isn't the fault of the system.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's not fair criticism when you're criticizing the system because people become criminals, which breaking the NAP in an ancap society would be. All systems have criminals, if ancapism could be shown that it'd have more criminals than normal, that'd be a fair criticism, but I can't that can be known either way.

>>1887409
>All systems have criminals

Not Anarcho-capitalism. If there is no law, there is no criminality.

As I said earlier, there is literally no reason for anyone to accept the NAP.

>>1887409
And all systems have reasonable ways of dealing with criminals. If they can't deal with criminals they fall into gang based warlordism and are considered failed states, such as found in numerous African countries. Ancapism would have more criminals because people wouldn't be motivated to not be criminals. That's a perfectly valid criticism.

>>1887417
The NAP is the law for everyone, along with whatever else your employer/landlord tells you what to do. People would accept the NAP because like all laws, you break it, you get fucked.
>>1887423
>Ancapism would have more criminals because people wouldn't be motivated to not be criminals
Of course they would. If you break the NAP you get punished, especially if you're breaking the NAP against the wealthier people. It's not like it's a guideline, it's a practical law, enforced with force, like all laws.

>>1887431
>you get fucked.

By who? The non-existent police?

>>1887436
The police exist as private security. Again, this is why anarchists discount ancapism, because it's essentially private statism.

>>1887438
>The police exist as private security

So they are literally just advocating might makes right.

>>1887438
Private statism is just feudalism. That makes ancap self defeating.

>>1887443
Not exactly, but because in ancapism your rights and liberty is correlated with how much property you have, in reality the wealthiest people are going to have the most property, and because the right over your property is absolute, they are the most powerful. Might doesn't make right, but being on their property means you must do whatever they want. Of course you could do whatever you want on your property, and you could even go homestead some land if you wanted to; it's just unfortunate that all the biggest corporations and wealthiest landowners all claimed and developed everything around for 100s of miles.
>>1887453
Yes, that's the entire idea.

>>1887438
Why does NAP even exist if you have private security? Private security (and raiding parties) would work without NAP, making NAP redundant and superfluous.

>>1887462
Because it's suppose to lead to an orderly and peaceful society. You don't fuck with my shit and I won't fuck with yours. Someone's private security can only function on that person's property, not outside of it. That's why ancapism is basically a more peaceful feudalism. Warring is not allowed unless in retaliation.

>>1887470
>its not allowed
Not allowed by what means? Everyone believing in magical property morals?

Oh wait, you already said, it's not allowed because people have private security. But if people have private security you don't need NAP. And private security is the only thing preventing you from violating NAP, so you can just hire private raiding companies that are better than their private security.

>>1881122
>posts an actual example
>gets ignored
Thanks for the read btw

>>1887475
Because following the NAP is (hypothetically) in everyone's best interests. Collusion is better than competition. And sure, people are likely going to break it anyway, but that's no different than people breaking the law now.

https://libcom.org/files/9th%20Century%20Muslim%20Anarchists.pdf

Brazilian indians were somewhat commies. Not anarchists.

>>1889662
And people could collude to violate NAP. The top 1%, which owns half the stuff, could collude to violate the NAP in the case 99%er peasants. And they might actually get away with it,m because they have just as many guns, their private army would be as strong as any citizen militia, etc.

Yes it is inherently different from braking the law now. What you're saying is
>what if we kept all the laws, but got rid of the entire justice system and let people deal with it themselves
We have a justice system, police, courts, jails, based around those laws, under which every citizen is supposed to be treated equally. The laws would be meaningless without a justice system.

>>1890019
>And people could collude to violate NAP. The top 1%, which owns half the stuff, could collude to violate the NAP in the case 99%er peasants. And they might actually get away with it,m because they have just as many guns, their private army would be as strong as any citizen militia, etc.
They wouldn't need to violate the NAP for them to easily control the masses, since if they own the property the masses live and work on, then they can decide whatever rules they want.
>We have a justice system, police, courts, jails, based around those laws, under which every citizen is supposed to be treated equally. The laws would be meaningless without a justice system.
A similar justice system would exist in an ancap society, just private. Again, the problem with ancapism isn't what you're talking about, since all of these things could be dealt with, the problem is that it is just privatizing the state. The injustices and inequalities in an ancap society would be no different than they are now, maybe even less, because the state is already fully in the pocket of the wealthy.

>>1881841
>libertarianism has never worked
>left anarchist societies last like 3 years
>fascist states last like 30 years
>liberal democracies have endured for centuries and rapidly gained dominance
>monarchism lasted everywhere for millennia

>>1890049
The problem is that an ancap society wouldn't have one justice system, but multiple. The tangle of inter-legal interactions and potential for frivolous litigation would be insane, as well as people simply refusing to settle on an arbitrator and reaching for a gun instead. Without a central governing body there will be a billion different notions of what constitutes aggression and legitimacy. Nobody is going to file a claim for the victim of extortion because private law agencies would have an incentive to destroy their opposition and suppress dissonance just like states do today, or even just form a fucking cartel. Refusing to patronize a DRO won't stop their goons fucking you up.

>>1890049
>if they own the property the masses live and work on, then they can decide whatever rules they want.

Bingo. Enjoy living in a society of mini tyrannies.

>nobody cited Zomia

meme discussion

>>1884604
now this one is really good.